Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 39 references

Accurate calculation of light rare-earth magnetic anisotropy with density functional theory

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Density functional theory systematically overestimates the magnetic anisotropy of light rare-earths because its single Slater determinant distorts the 4f charge cloud; the paper shows an ion-only multipole correction fixes this, bringing…

desk verdict A physically motivated correction for light-RE MAE in DFT, with a promising SmCo5 result that is less controlled than it looks because the correction scales the whole fitted anisotropy, not just the 4f contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19496 v1 pith:FJWT377T submitted 2025-08-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Liqin Ke , R. Flint , Y. Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords rare-earthmagnetsmagneticanisotropyenergy4fchargeasphericitydensityfunctionaltheorycrystalfieldmany-bodycorrectionSmCo5lightrare-earths
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper identifies why density functional theory (DFT) fails for light rare-earth magnets: a single Slater determinant cannot represent the Hund's-rule $|J=L-S,J\rangle$ ground state, so the $4f$ charge cloud appears more aspherical than it really is, and the magnetic anisotropy energy (MAE) comes out too large. The fix is a systematic many-body correction: each charge multipole moment $Q_k$ of the DFT density is rescaled by a ratio that depends only on the rare-earth ion, not on the material. The authors validate the underlying assumption that crystal-field parameters can be probed consistently inside DFT on TbV$_6$Sn$_6$ and TbCo$_5$, then apply the correction to SmCo$_5$, where the uniaxial MAE drops from roughly 25 meV/f.u. into the experimental range of 13–16 meV/f.u. This matters because light rare-earth permanent magnets such as SmCo$_5$ and Nd$_2$Fe$_{14}$B are the strongest permanent magnets known, and a computationally cheap correction opens them to systematic theory-driven design.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of ion-specific correction ratios $R_k = Q_k/Q_k^{\mathrm{DFT}} = \theta_J\langle JJ|O_0^k|JJ\rangle/(\theta_L\langle LL|O_0^k|LL\rangle)$ for $k=2,4,6$, where $O_0^k$ are the operator-equivalent angular-momentum polynomials used in crystal-field theory and $\theta_J$, $\theta_L$ are the corresponding operator-equivalent coefficients. These ratios rescale the DFT-derived anisotropy coefficients $\kappa_\ell^m = A_\ell^m Q_\ell$ before the MAE is evaluated, so all material dependence is carried by the crystal-field parameters $A_\ell^m$ extracted from constrained DFT+U calculations. The companion machinery is the rotation of the magnetization axis in constrained DFT+U with a fixed Hund's-rule occupancy, producing the energy surface $E(\theta,\phi)$ that is fit to the hexagonal $C_{3v}$ form of Eq. (3).

What would settle it

Measure the full magnetocrystalline anisotropy of NdCo5 at low temperature: the correction implies the in-plane term should be about three times smaller than uncorrected DFT predicts, so an experimentally robust sixfold term close to the uncorrected DFT value would disprove the ion-only ratios.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the long-standing failure of DFT-based methods for light rare-earths has a specific, correctable origin: the single-Slater-determinant restriction of DFT represents the $4f$ shell by its maximally polarized $|L,L\rangle$ component rather than the true $|J,J\rangle$ ground state, so the angular anisotropy of the $4f$ charge density is systematically exaggerated for the $J=L-S$ light ions. The exaggeration is quantified by the multipole moments $Q_k$ ($k=2,4,6$), which are always overestimated in DFT; the correction factor is the ratio $Q_k/Q_k^{\mathrm{DFT}}$, a pure number for each ion and multipole order. The paper shows that crystal-field parameters extracted from constrained DFT+U total-energy surfaces are essentially independent of which $4f$ configuration probes them in TbV$_6$Sn$_6$ and TbCo$_5$, giving a self-consistency check for combining DFT with crystal-field theory. With the correction, SmCo$_5$'s calculated uniaxial MAE falls from about 25 meV/f.u. to the experimentally measured 13–16 meV/f.u., and a spurious in-plane anisotropy disappears because $Q_6=0$ for the $J=5/2$ Sm ground state.

Load-bearing premise

The correction works only if the crystal-field potential seen by the 4f electrons is unchanged no matter which 4f orbital configuration is used to probe it in DFT, so that rescaling the charge asphericity alone captures the full many-body effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DFT+U with the ion-only correction reproduces the measured MAE of SmCo5, making light rare-earth permanent magnets tractable with standard DFT codes.
  • The extracted crystal-field parameters can be reused for low-temperature properties and for excited spin-orbit multiplets, opening a route to optical-transition calculations.
  • Because the correction ratios depend only on the ion, the same tabulated factors apply across the isostructural rare-earth series without material-specific fitting.
  • In cubic Sm compounds the correction cuts the 4f anisotropy to about 15% of the uncorrected DFT value, which is where the leading anisotropy first appears.
  • For lighter light rare-earths such as Nd, the in-plane anisotropy is expected to be overestimated by about a factor of three before correction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the configuration-independence of the crystal-field parameters holds, the same correction ratios should predict how the anisotropy changes as the 4f occupancy or the J multiplet changes, allowing finite-temperature and doping trends to be computed from one set of crystal-field parameters.
  • The same overestimated charge asphericity should affect other orbital-sensitive observables in light rare-earths, such as magnetic form factors or X-ray magnetic circular dichroism; comparing those against experiment would test the correction beyond magnetocrystalline anisotropy.
  • The method's boundary is likely set by hybridization: for mixed-valent Ce or 5f actinides the assumption of a fixed crystal field probed by an integer-valence DFT state can break down, so a natural test is whether the extracted crystal-field parameters remain stable for a Ce compound with sizable f-f hopping.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript addresses the long-standing failure of DFT-based methods to reproduce the magnetocrystalline anisotropy (MA) of light rare-earth (RE) compounds. The authors argue that the single Slater-determinant representation in DFT overestimates the 4f charge asphericity, leading to an overestimated MA. They propose a correction that multiplies the crystal-field anisotropy coefficients extracted from constrained DFT+U total-energy surfaces by ratios of multipole moments computed from angular momentum algebra for the true |J,J> and the DFT |L,L> states. They validate the crystal-field-parameter extraction by showing consistency across different 4f configurations in TbV6Sn6 and TbCo5, and apply the correction to SmCo5, obtaining a corrected MAE in the experimental range of 13-16 meV/f.u.

Significance. The central idea is elegant and the angular-momentum algebra leading to the correction factors in Table I is on firm ground. If the approach is valid, it offers a practical, efficient DFT-based route to light-RE anisotropy, which is important for permanent-magnet design. The internal consistency check across m_l configurations is a valuable test of the assumption that DFT total-energy surfaces can be described by a crystal-field model. However, the only external validation of the many-body correction is SmCo5, where the correction is applied to the total anisotropy without separating the Co-sublattice contribution. The paper's conclusions are therefore plausible but not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (3), Eq. (4), and the paragraph 'Now we use these corrections'] The correction ratios in Table I are derived from the angular momentum algebra of the 4f shell alone, yet they are applied to the κ_l^m coefficients obtained by fitting the total DFT energy E(θ,φ) of SmCo5 to Eq. (3). In RCo5, the total anisotropy also contains Co-sublattice magnetocrystalline anisotropy and 4f-3d exchange anisotropy, which have the same P_l(cosθ) angular forms. The manuscript does not separate these contributions, so scaling the entire fitted κ's by the Sm ratios in Table I also scales the non-4f terms. The validation on TbCo5 does not test the many-body correction because Tb is a heavy RE with |JJ>=|LL>, so no correction is applied. To support the SmCo5 result, the authors should either compute the corresponding anisotropy for YCo5 and subtract it from the SmCo5 total before applying the correction, or otherwise demonstrate that the Co contribution is negligible. Without this decomposition, the reported agreement with the experimental MAE of 13-16 meV/f.u. could be fortuitous.
  2. [Eq. (4) and the paragraph 'Our procedure relies on the consistency of CF theory within DFT'] The correction formula assumes that the DFT constrained 4f state can be identified with the maximally polarized |L,L> Slater determinant for the purpose of computing Q_DFT_k. This assumption is not directly tested for light RE ions. The consistency check across |m_l> states is performed for Tb (a heavy RE) and does not establish that the Sm 4f state in the DFT calculation is exactly |L,L>; hybridization or self-interaction errors could distort the occupation matrix away from this ideal configuration. The authors should provide a quantitative comparison of the DFT 4f density matrix with the ideal |L,L> projection, or validate the correction on a light-RE compound with a non-magnetic transition-metal sublattice, where the 4f contribution can be isolated.
  3. [SmCo5 application paragraph and Supplemental Material note] The SmCo5 result is reported for a single value of U (10 eV) and without uncertainty estimates. Since the extracted κ_l^m depend on U and other computational parameters while the correction factors in Table I do not, a sensitivity analysis is needed to show that the agreement with experiment is robust rather than parameter-dependent. The Supplemental Material is cited for U-dependence but is not available in the preprint.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method is 'confirmed' on TbV6Sn6 and TbCo5, but for these heavy-RE compounds only the crystal-field-parameter extraction is validated; the many-body correction is not applied. Please phrase this distinction explicitly.
  2. [Figure 2(e,f)] The spread of the extracted CFPs across m_l states is described only qualitatively ('within ~14%'). Providing numerical values or error bars would strengthen the consistency claim.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The symbols θ_k, O0_k, and ⟨r^k⟩ are not fully defined in the text. Please define them and state that the ratios in Table I are independent of ⟨r^k⟩.
  4. [Supplemental Material] The paper refers to the Supplemental Material for U-dependent results, but the preprint does not include it. Please ensure the supplemental file is provided with the submission.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The statement that the overestimation 'generally increases with both atomic number and multipole order k' is not strictly monotonic in Z for k=2 (e.g., Pr has a larger Q2/Q_DFT_2 ratio than Ce). Consider rephrasing to avoid overstatement.
  6. [Limitations paragraph] The limitations paragraph mentions that DFT may probe bare CFPs that could be renormalized by hybridization and interactions. This is an important caveat for the interpretation of the 'close agreement with experiment' and should be discussed in more detail.
  7. [Methods description] The constrained-DFT protocol is cited to Ref. [12], but a brief description of the constraint (e.g., the occupation matrix setting) in the text would make the paper more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the many-body correction is independent angular-momentum algebra and the SmCo5 MAE is a genuine prediction; residual concerns are correctness, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The correction ratios in Eq. (4) and Table I follow from Stevens operator algebra and the difference between the |JJ> and |LL> states; they do not use DFT energies or experimental MAE as inputs. The SmCo5 MAE is obtained by taking the DFT+U-fitted kappa_l^m coefficients and multiplying by these fixed ion-only ratios, then comparing to the 13-16 meV/f.u. experimental range; no parameter is fitted to that range. The TbV6Sn6 and TbCo5 validations are external benchmarks for the crystal-field extraction procedure. Self-citations [12,18] support the constrained-DFT protocol but are not load-bearing for the correction itself, which rests on standard operator-equivalent references [23,31,32]. The acknowledged limitation that integer valence is required and that DFT may probe bare CFPs renormalized by hybridization is a domain-validity caveat, not a circularity. The strongest residual concern is that Eq. (4) is applied to the total fitted kappa_l^m in SmCo5, which may include Co-sublattice and exchange contributions with the same angular forms; if so, the numerical agreement could be partly fortuitous. However, that is a correctness risk, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard rare-earth atomic physics plus two paper-specific assumptions: configurational independence of the crystal-field parameters and the identification of the DFT state with the ideal |L,L> Slater determinant. The only tuned computational parameter is the Hubbard U, chosen in the 6-12 eV range. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U on R-4f = 6-12 eV; 10 eV for SmCo5
    Chosen to enforce integer valence and 4f localization; not fitted to experimental MAE, but its choice affects the DFT total energies and could influence the extracted CFPs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Russell-Saunders LS coupling is valid for the 4f rare-earth ground states.
    Standard for rare-earths; the paper's correction ratios rely on |L,S,J> states.
  • ad hoc to paper The crystal-field parameters A_q^k do not depend on the 4f configuration, so the DFT Slater determinant probes the same crystal potential as the true |J,J> state.
    Explicitly assumed and tested only via internal consistency in TbV6Sn6/TbCo5; Eq. (4) and the paragraph 'Our procedure relies on the consistency of CF theory within DFT'.
  • ad hoc to paper The DFT constrained 4f state can be identified with the maximally polarized |L,L> Slater determinant for the purpose of computing Q_DFT_k.
    The correction ratio in Eq. (4) replaces the DFT density with the ideal |L,L> state; hybridization or non-ideal occupations are neglected.
  • standard math Stevens operator equivalence and tabulated coefficients alpha_J, beta_J, gamma_J apply.
    Standard CF theory; refs [23-32].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accurate calculation of light rare-earth magnetic anisotropy with density functional theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJWT377T

@misc{pith2026250819496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accurate calculation of light rare-earth magnetic anisotropy with density functional theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJWT377T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19496}
}
abstract

Density functional theory (DFT) has long struggled to treat light rare-earth magnetism. We show that this difficulty arises from an overestimate of the $4f$ charge asphericity, and thus the magnetic anisotropy energy, due to the inadequacy of single Slater-determinant representations. We propose an effective solution by combining constrained DFT+U with crystal field theory and a systematic many-body correction to the charge asphericity. We confirm the validity of this combination on TbV$_6$Sn$_6$ and TbCo$_5$, and then show how the many-body correction adjusts the calculated magnetic anisotropy energy of SmCo$_5$ to match experiment. Our method is an efficient DFT-based approach to address light-rare-earth magnetism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19496 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. DFT overestimates the 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. SmCo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J.-X. Yin, W. Ma, T. A. Cochran, X. Xu, S. S. Zhang, H.-J. Tien, N. Shumiya, G. Cheng, K. Jiang, B. Lian, et al. , Quantum-limit Chern topological magnetism in TbMn6Sn6, Nature 583, 533 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    dumbbell

    A0 2 has the opposite sign compared to that in TbV6Sn6, explaining the easy-axis MA of TbV 6Sn6[17, 4 ( a ) R C o ( 3 g ) C o ( 2 c ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) R V S n ( 2 e ) S n ( 2 c ) S n ( 2 d ) FIG. 2. Rare-earth magnetocrystalline anisotropy and crystal-field parameters calculated using various Tb-4 f con- figurations in TbV6Sn6 and TbCo5. (a) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Pagliuso, N

    P. Pagliuso, N. Curro, N. Moreno, M. Hundley, J. Thompson, J. Sarrao, and Z. Fisk, Structurally tuned superconductivity in heavy-fermion CeMIn5 (M=Co, Ir, Rh), Physica B: Condensed Matter 320, 370 (2002), pro- ceedings of the Fifth Latin American Workshop on Mag- netism, Magnetic Materials and their Applications

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Q. Y. Chen, D. F. Xu, X. H. Niu, J. Jiang, R. Peng, H. C. Xu, C. H. P. Wen, Z. F. Ding, K. Huang, L. Shu, Y. J. Zhang, H. Lee, V. N. Strocov, M. Shi, F. Bisti, T. Schmitt, Y. B. Huang, P. Dudin, X. C. Lai, S. Kirch- ner, H. Q. Yuan, and D. L. Feng, Direct observation of how the heavy-fermion state develops in CeCoIn 5, Phys. Rev. B 96, 045107 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    W. Ma, X. Xu, J.-X. Yin, H. Yang, H. Zhou, Z.-J. Cheng, Y. Huang, Z. Qu, F. Wang, M. Z. Hasan, and S. Jia, Rare Earth Engineering in RMn6Sn6 (R =Gd–Tm, Lu) Topo- logical Kagome Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 246602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    It is useful to define the MA energy as the angle dependent energy of the fully polarized ferromagnetic ground state, E(θ,ϕ ) = ˆn⟨JJ|HCF|JJ⟩ˆn, where |JJ⟩ˆn is along the quantization axis, ˆn, rotated by θ,ϕ from the crystallographic c-axis. E(θ,ϕ ) =κ0 2P2(cosθ) +κ0 4P4(cosθ) +κ0 6P6(cosθ) 3 +κ6 6 1 16 sin6θ cos 6ϕ, (3) where κm ℓ =Am ℓ Qℓ, Qℓ depends o...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The LS coupling scheme is expected to work well for the REs, while intermediate or j-j coupling schemes will be more appropriate for the actinides. In the LS scheme, the|JM J⟩ states are written as the linear combination, |JM J⟩ = X ML+MS =MJ ⟨LS;MLMS|JM J⟩|LS;MLMS⟩, (1) where⟨LS;MLMS|JM J⟩ are the Clebsch-Gordan coef- ficients. The many-body basis states...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Kirchner, S

    S. Kirchner, S. Paschen, Q. Chen, S. Wirth, D. Feng, J. D. Thompson, and Q. Si, Colloquium: Heavy-electron quantum criticality and single-particle spectroscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 011002 (2020)

    2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Skomski and J

    R. Skomski and J. M. D. Coey, Permanent magnetism (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    K. A. Gschneidner and L. Eyring, eds., Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1978)

    1978

  3. [11]

    Sch¨ uler, Mccaig: Permanent magnets in theory and practice, Physikalische Bl¨ atter35, 423 (1979)

    K. Sch¨ uler, Mccaig: Permanent magnets in theory and practice, Physikalische Bl¨ atter35, 423 (1979)

    1979

  4. [12]

    L. H. Lewis and F. Jim´ enez-Villacorta, Perspectives on permanent magnetic materials for energy conversion and power generation, Metallurgical and Materials Transac- tions A 44, 20 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    McCallum, L

    R. McCallum, L. Lewis, R. Skomski, M. Kramer, and I. Anderson, Practical aspects of modern and future per- manent magnets, Annual Review of Materials Research 44, 451 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Tittel, M

    W. Tittel, M. Afzelius, A. Kinos, L. Rippe, and A. Walther, Quantum networks using rare-earth ions, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 033002 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Y. Lee, Z. Ning, R. Flint, R. J. McQueeney, I. I. Mazin, and L. Ke, Importance of enforcing hund’s rules in den- sity functional theory calculations of rare earth mag- netocrystalline anisotropy, npj Computational Materials 11, 168 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Zhou and V

    F. Zhou and V. Ozoli¸ nˇ s, Obtaining correct orbital ground states in f-electron systems using a nonspherical self- interaction-corrected LDA+U method, Phys. Rev. B 80, 125127 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    C. E. Patrick, S. Kumar, G. Balakrishnan, R. S. Ed- wards, M. R. Lees, L. Petit, and J. B. Staunton, Calcu- lating the magnetic anisotropy of rare-earth–transition- metal ferrimagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 097202 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    I. L. M. Locht, Y. O. Kvashnin, D. C. M. Rodrigues, M. Pereiro, A. Bergman, L. Bergqvist, A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. Katsnelson, A. Delin, A. B. Klautau, B. Johansson, 6 I. Di Marco, and O. Eriksson, Standard model of the rare earths analyzed from the Hubbard I approximation, P...

    2016

  11. [19]

    Delange, S

    P. Delange, S. Biermann, T. Miyake, and L. Pourovskii, Crystal-field splittings in rare-earth-based hard magnets: An ab initio approach, Phys. Rev. B 96, 155132 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    S. X. M. Riberolles, T. J. Slade, D. L. Abernathy, G. E. Granroth, B. Li, Y. Lee, P. C. Canfield, B. G. Ueland, L. Ke, and R. J. McQueeney, Low-Temperature Compet- ing Magnetic Energy Scales in the Topological Ferrimag- net TbMn6Sn6, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021043 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Y. Lee, R. Skomski, X. Wang, P. P. Orth, Y. Ren, B. Kang, A. K. Pathak, A. Kutepov, B. N. Harmon, R. J. McQueeney, I. I. Mazin, and L. Ke, Interplay between magnetism and band topology in the kagome magnets RMn6Sn6, Phys. Rev. B 108, 045132 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Rosenberg, J

    E. Rosenberg, J. M. DeStefano, Y. Guo, J. S. Oh, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, R. J. Birgeneau, Y. Lee, L. Ke, M. Yi, and J.-H. Chu, Uniaxial ferromagnetism in the kagome metal TbV 6Sn6, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115139 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    M. Xu, Y. Lee, X. Ke, M.-C. Kang, M. Boswell, S. L. Bud’ko, L. Zhou, L. Ke, M. Li, P. C. Canfield, and W. Xie, Giant Uniaxial Magnetocrystalline Anisotropy in SmCrGe 3, Journal of the American Chemical Society 146, 30294 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    T. Han, R. D. McKenzie, J. Blawat, T. J. Slade, Y. Lee, D. M. Pajerowski, J. Singleton, B. Li, P. C. Canfield, L. Ke, R. McDonald, R. Flint, and R. J. McQueeney, Proximity to quantum criticality in the Ising ferromagnet TbV6Sn6 (2024), arXiv:2412.02010 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  17. [25]

    M. E. Gazzah, P.-H. Chang, Y. Lee, H. Bhandari, R. Regmi, X. Zhou, J. F. Mitchell, L. Ke, I. I. Mazin, and N. J. Ghimire, Doping-induced spin reorientation in kagome magnet tmmn6sn6 (2025), arXiv:2505.02936 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Abragam and B

    A. Abragam and B. Bleaney, Electron Paramagnetic Res- onance of Transition Ions, 1st ed., International Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 1970)

    1970

  19. [27]

    Bethe, Termaufspaltung in kristallen, Annalen der Physik 395, 133 (1929)

    H. Bethe, Termaufspaltung in kristallen, Annalen der Physik 395, 133 (1929)

    1929

  20. [28]

    K. W. H. Stevens, Matrix elements and operator equiv- alents connected with the magnetic properties of rare earth ions, Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A 65, 209 (1952)

    1952

  21. [29]

    C. J. Ballhausen, Introduction to ligand field theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962)

    1962

  22. [30]

    Hutchings, Point-Charge Calculations of Energy Lev- els of Magnetic Ions in Crystalline Electric Fields (Aca- demic Press, 1964) pp

    M. Hutchings, Point-Charge Calculations of Energy Lev- els of Magnetic Ions in Crystalline Electric Fields (Aca- demic Press, 1964) pp. 227–273

    1964

  23. [31]

    K. N. R. Taylor and M. I. Darby, Physics of rare earth solids (Chapman and Hall, London, 1972)

    1972

  24. [32]

    Sievers, Asphericity of 4f-shells in their Hund’s rule ground states, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 45, 289 (1982)

    J. Sievers, Asphericity of 4f-shells in their Hund’s rule ground states, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 45, 289 (1982)

    1982

  25. [33]

    Skomski, Simple Models of Magnetism , Oxford Grad- uate Texts (OUP Oxford, 2008)

    R. Skomski, Simple Models of Magnetism , Oxford Grad- uate Texts (OUP Oxford, 2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Hoffmann, Generalization of stevens’ operator- equivalent method, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, 35 (1991)

    P. Hoffmann, Generalization of stevens’ operator- equivalent method, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 24, 35 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    Duros, A

    O. Duros, A. Juhin, H. Elnaggar, G. S. Chiuzb˘ aian, and C. Brouder, General expressions for stevens and racah operator equivalents, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 58, 025207 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Pokharel, B

    G. Pokharel, B. Ortiz, J. Chamorro, P. Sarte, L. Kautzsch, G. Wu, J. Ruff, and S. D. Wilson, Highly anisotropic magnetism in the vanadium-based kagome metal TbV6Sn6, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 104202 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Greedan and V

    J. Greedan and V. Rao, An analysis of the rare earth contribution to the magnetic anisotropy in RCo5 and R2Co17 compounds, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 6, 387 (1973)

    1973

  30. [38]

    Tie-song, J

    Z. Tie-song, J. Han-min, G. Guang-hua, H. Xiu-feng, and C. Hong, Magnetic properties of R ions in RCo5 com- pounds (R=Pr, Nd, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, and Er), Phys. Rev. B 43, 8593 (1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    Larson, I

    P. Larson, I. I. Mazin, and D. A. Papaconstantopou- los, Calculation of magnetic anisotropy energy in SmCo5, Phys. Rev. B 67, 214405 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.